Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harrison Township board denies rezoning request for Emerald Green Properties
Summary
The Harrison Township Board voted unanimously July 14 to deny Emerald Green Properties’ request to rezone two parcels from R1‑C (single‑family) to RM‑1 (multiple family), citing Master Plan inconsistency, site constraints (including wetlands), and infrastructure concerns.
The Charter Township of Harrison Board of Trustees on July 14 unanimously denied a rezoning request from Emerald Green Properties LLC for two parcels (parcel IDs 17‑12‑20‑202‑009 and 17‑12‑20‑226‑003) that the applicant sought to change from R1‑C (single‑family residential) to RM‑1 (multiple‑family residential).
Treasurer Lawrence Tomenello moved to deny Case #15‑25_RZ; Trustee Brian Batkins seconded. In a recorded vote the Board voted aye: Kenneth Verkest, Adam Wit, Lawrence Tomenello, Brian Batkins, David Bratto and Dean Olgiati. The motion carried and the Board denied the request.
The Township Planner told the Board that while the applicant’s site sketch shows an 88‑lot detached single‑family condominium layout, approval of an RM‑1 rezoning would allow a wider range of higher‑intensity uses — including conventional multifamily apartment configurations — that the Township’s current Master Plan does not support. The Planning Commission had earlier recommended denial.
In explaining the Board’s decision, trustees cited several findings listed in the motion: inconsistency with the adopted Master Plan (the Plan’s Attached/Townhouse designation does not support traditional multifamily complexes); the presence of substantial natural constraints on the site (including drains and wetlands totaling more than five acres); concerns that existing drainage and surface runoff infrastructure is inadequate for more intense uses; and uncertainty about street capacity, given that access is via Ashland Avenue and Metropolitan Parkway access is unlikely. The motion also noted the applicant had not submitted evidence demonstrating market demand for RM‑1 uses and that the applicant indicated their intended use was single‑family development, which can proceed without rezoning.
The Board’s denial leaves the property in its current R1‑C zoning; the minutes note other development options still available under current rules — including a residential open space option or a planned unit development (PUD) — if the petitioner chooses to revise its proposal.
Next steps: the Board’s action is final on the rezoning request; the applicant may pursue a site plan or alternative development path consistent with current zoning or submit a new application if they revise their proposal.
